Not quite sure if the "Attacker" or "Attackee" is vise-versa - the old guy could have and should have just walked off and called the cops if he wanted, he apparantly kept trying to go in, after he had been kicked out of the establishment - and may have done so a few times before the camera was running for these shots. Had the old guy not been a reporter harrassing the guy and trashing the guys livelyhood on TV - it may have been him taking a ride with the SWAT team. (SWAT TEAM.... For a scrawny guy with a Snowball...)

Let's see ... some self-appointed caped crusader decides to target you, endanger your livelihood, accuse you of crimes in today's version of 'kangaroo court,' and you're not supposed to get mad? You're not supposed to protect yourself.

Counterfeit goods? I am sure that the trademark owners have lawyers, who know how to shut such operations down legally. Fraud? I think the taxpayers are already funding government agencies, including the police, to enforce the law.

I fail to see any legal framework that allows one group (the media) to assault, trespass, harass, slander, or go on witch hunts. We have seen far too many instances of "respected media" misrepresenting, twisting, even falsifying matters. This is in addition to the countless times they've simply mad mistakes.

Even the less edited footage is still edited... To maybe disquise the fact that they pushed the (Obviously unstable) guy over the edge? Which is what they are ultimately looking for... But a more sensable person would have handled it differently by refusing to comment.

Alan, I also am discovering, as I age, how lovely older ladies can appear. I also need to get my eyeglass prescription checked ....

As for the California certification law, IMO passing a law without popular support, a means to enforce it, or penalties for violating it creates a situation worse than having no law at all. The failure of governments to perform their duties may be one reason so folks, like mudfish, leave their ponds in search of cleaner ones.